I just read this article by Saqib Rahim in the NY Times.

It’s been sold as the ultimate no-brainer climate investment: Make a building that’s more energy efficient, and you’ll pocket the savings while avoiding harmful emissions.

With buildings accounting for 40 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, the “green” building has also gotten a look from Obama administration policymakers hoping to shrink the nation’s carbon footprint.

Now a group of builders has issued a report arguing that the green-building vision may be more of a myth. You can make a building more energy efficient, the group says, but it won’t come cheap, and it could take decades to pay off.

The report, released this week by the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, found that a 50 percent energy improvement beyond federal standards is technically impossible. A 30 percent target is achievable, but only by adding a million-dollar solar system that could take up to 100 years to pay for itself.

Experts say it is one of the first efforts they have seen to question whether the green building’s economic foundation is as solid as advocates claim.

The association, which represents developers of office buildings and other commercial properties, goes by its former acronym, NAIOP. John Bryant, a lobbyist for the group, said he wants the report to wake up policymakers who are considering a big hike for building energy codes.

“Some of the language that’s been used in mandate proposals might not be as achievable as people have said,” he said. “We don’t want to stop the debate – we want it to move forward; we just want to add some economic data to it.”

Keep Reading